muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Aleal
Search Are they doing work on Wiki? Last night it keep going down for me, and today I cannot use the search feature. --Nate Radionate 08:42, 5 April 2006 (PDT) :Yeah, search is being evil. I'm using Google for the birthday stuff right now (though I need to quit, have a meeting). --Andrew, Aleal 08:43, 5 April 2006 (PDT) Holidays I'm about to hang it up for awhile today, but before I do I was thinking, should we create a new catagory called "Holidays", and then lump Halloween, Christmas and Easter (which I'm about to create) into there as subcatagories? --Nate Radionate 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC) :That sounds pretty oojah-cum-spiff to me! --Andrew, Aleal 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC) ::Psssst. Can you delete Valentines Day when you have a chance? Nevermind. Just saw you did. --Nate Radionate 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC) :::I already did, before I started on Birthdays! --Andrew, Aleal 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ::::What do you think about creating catagories such as Category: Christmas Merchandise, or Category: Easter Merchandise. Then we can place all the merchandise categories into there such as the books, coloring books, plush, etc. Or will this start a trend of too many subcategories? I was just thinking it might condense the pages a little. --Nate Radionate 23:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :::::Hmmm.... It's not a bad idea, actually, but worth doing only for the big holidays (some of the tiny ones don't even need any subcats yet, or are better off without them, though I do know there's some talk show stuff that could go under New Year's, and a whole slew of patriotic stuff for a nifty "Fourth of July" page). My main reservation is the items are all already in the main merchandise categories, and the current holiday organization makes it easy to get at Christmas figures or coloring books or what have you. --Andrew, Aleal 23:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC) ::::::See I like the fact that it is easy to see the Christmas Coloring books when you are on the Christmas page, but at the same time, Christmas is getting so many categories, that some of the more interesting things (in my opinion) are about to be lost in all the stuff. That's why I thought I'd throw this at the admin who has been creating all the Holiday stuff first. --Nate Radionate 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :::::::Hmm, I checked, and you have a point. Well, I'll leave it up to you really. Whatever you think works best is fine with me. It won't really effect everything else anyway, just be a subcat with its own subcategories. --Andrew, Aleal 00:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Props to you Just wanted to say that I now love you, because you knew that Silver Bells was from The Lemondrop Kid. That made me incredibly happy. --Nate Radionate 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC) :Awww, I love you too (in a purely non-romantic Wiki sort of way). It's Christmas time in the city! I'm a huge Bob Hope fan, and for many years, my dad and I would watch The Lemon Drop Kid every Christmas. I stil get a kick out of William Frawley's version: "Chunk it in, chunk it in, or Sandy will slip you a mickey." --Andrew, Aleal 12:36, 4 April 2006 (PDT) Walkarounds Hey kiddo, I saw you deleted the Rizzo (walk-arounds) or Rizzo walk-arounds, but could you by chance delete out the whole lot of redirects that I did? I don't think I can do that can I? Just admins right? There were a bunch from the other day. Like Camilla walk-arounds, Ojo walk-arounds, etc. Thanks!!! --Nate Radionate 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) :Patience, grasshopper. I'm doing the double redirects a little at a time. The Rizzo one didn't link to anything, so that was easier. With others, any links need to be checked or corrected first to avoid creating a dead link. --Andrew, Aleal 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC) ::Oh wise Master, I've made sure to check for links to the redirected pages before I redirected them. :) I'm getting Wiki wise! For a blonde. --Nate Radionate 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Christmas Characters So you created it, so I gotta ask it. What all should we consider a "Christmas Character"? Since it was a Christmas special. I'd say no, but I just want to check. I guess the same could go for The Great Santa Claus Switch and The Christmas Toy and Mr. Willowby's Christmas Tree, etc. Or would they only count if they were in Christmas type outfits? --Nate Radionate 16:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :Actually, I didn't create it, Danny did! Right now, I'm including only characters traditionally associated with Christmas. Apart from Santa Claus, there's Reindeer, Elves, and I'd go ahead and put The Snowman and Ebenezer Scrooge in too, I think, and of course Jesus Christ Muppet. I'm not sure about one shot special characters, unless they represented something traditional. The outfits aren't the issue as much as the role. I don't think it makes sense right now to put Mew or Cosmo Scam in, even though they did appear in Christmas specials. However, a Christmas Carolers page might be in order. There's the specific characters who appeared in the Elmo's World video, and it could list all occasions where Muppets functioned as collective caroling groups. --Andrew, Aleal 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, see, Lightning fits perfectly I think, since he's a reindeer. Joe Snowman could probably go in too (not The Grinch, though, despite his association, unless he did his Christmas thing in The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss). Some of the other Christmas Carol characters might be dicey. I'd say Scrooge fits, especially as Very Merry Muppet Christmas blah blah had the whole "Moulin Scrooge" thing. Probably Tiny Tim Cratchit and maybe Bob Cratchit as well, and possibly catch all page for the ghosts. The rest, though, were either embellished with names for the movie not in the source text or, like Nephew Fred or especially Old Joe, are associated with A Christms Carol but not really famous Christmas characters on their own. Of course, this will all get even messier once a "Halloween Characters" category is created! --Andrew, Aleal 16:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :::I agree that the Cratchits and the Ghosts should be included there, but I disagree about Nephew Fred. I think he, along with Belle most certainly should be there, along with anyone else from the book, or based off the book (like Fozziewig. Otherwise I agree totally with you. I'm sooooo glad I just decided to clean up the Christmas catagory this morning!!! --Nate Radionate 16:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::::I can give in on Fred, but I don't know about Belle. For one thing, was that even her name in the text? I think she was originally just a nameless fiance. And when I think of Christmas characters, I don't think Cashboxes and Locks or Undertaker. So I dunno. I'd feel more comfortable including just the most iconic ones, even if others were in the book, and making a See Also to Christmas Carol Characters, and for that matter other Christmas Specials character categories. --Andrew, Aleal 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :::::I would just like to say that I created the category last night and didn't have a thought in my puddin' head about what would go in there. So it's nice to come back today and find that you guys have come up with a whole complicated system around it. All hail the Great Goofy Spirit of the wiki. -- Danny Toughpigs 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::::::No all hail you Danny! But back to the characters, yes Belle has been the common name of Scrooge's girlfriend for most adaptations. I should know this, as I'm a Christmas Carol junkie, but I believe that was her name in the book. I agree that cash boxes and what not should not be listed, but I do feel that any character taken directly from the book (even if their names were slightly changed, such as Fozziwig), should be included. That's my take, but if ya'll disagree, I won't fuss.....too much. ;) --Nate Radionate 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :::::::I don't disagree on Fozziwig, but I do on Old Joe a bit though. Belle, I give in on, though a quick net search confirmed that it's a name given in the films most often but in the source text, no name was given, same for Clara. Here's a great comparison site: http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/christmas-carol/christmas-carol.html So I give in on most of them, but creating a page for Headmaster Sam and lumping him in not just as a Christmas character but as a Christmas character is going a bit too far in my mind (Bunsen and Beaker as the charity collectors, well, that's borderline enough to where I'll leave it to you). --Andrew, Aleal 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::::::::What a cool page, that Xmas Carol comparison site! I'm adding that to the MXC page. -- Danny Toughpigs 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :::::::::Well I think we agree then. No characters from Christmas Carol that were named just for the Muppet version, but anything based directly from the book will be included. I didn't include any of the children except for Tiny Tim Cratchit, as they aren't (in my opinion) directly from the source, as I've seen adaptations where the Cratchits had a number of children, and just a few. --Nate Radionate 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::And I hearby declare my right to change my mind. After checking out the site, I fell Old Joe should be included in the characters. I didn't realize he was so named in the book. Any way of convincing you otherwise? --Nate Radionate 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :::::::::I'll cave in because I've caved into everything else (sigh, I'm such a pushover), though the fact that you ain't going to see Old Joe on a Hallmark card anytime soon makes me dubious. But are you now going to argue for nameless characters like Laundress? As for the Cratchits, I'm thinking a Cratchit Family page might be useful. Also, I know there were some Christmas type characters, outside of Angels, spoofed or portrayed in Very Merry etc. I think Robin was the Sugar Plum Fairy or something? --Andrew, Aleal 17:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :No I won't argue for the Laundress, because her role varies from production to production. So I won't push to include her. Nor any of Scrooge's clients, townfolk, Bean as the boy fetching the turkey, etc. I think a Cratchit Kid's page might be cool. And as for Robin in "Very Merry", he is a spoof of the angel from Moulin Rouge. It ties in to the whole number which come from the movie (the moon, the windmill, Kermit's outfit, etc.) ::Okay, I guess I can live with that. Bah humbug anyway, though. --Andrew, Aleal 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :::Well think of it this way. Both of us became the first people to finally vote for Scrooge for something! --N ate Radionate 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) ::::Actually, Tom beat us to it, sort of on Main page picture nominations. (Well, he only said he wanted to vote for Mr. Scrooge, but anyway) --Andrew, Aleal 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC) References/Spoofs Hey, I just had a thought about the References and Spoofs categories. We've been having some problems with those lately, with things that just don't fit. So I was thinking that maybe we could change the category names around, and make them more descriptive. My thought is that "References" should be for everything that the Muppets make reference to. That would include spoofs, but it would also include random things like Beethoven, who isn't really "spoofed", or Fran Allison, or anything else the Muppets refer to that could use some explanation. It could also include Stan Freberg, Bob and Ray, and the other stuff that Sam and Friends used. A nice general catch-all category, with a less loaded name. If we wanted to do that, then we'd have to come up with another name for the category currently known as References. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything good. Do you have any ideas? -- Danny Toughpigs 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :Hmmm. Well currently, everything in references is spoofs or allusions or tributes from outside shows *to* the Muppets. So either "Muppet Rfeerences", (which could go both ways but would be clearly explained) or "Homages" strike me as possibilities. And even that could maybe be divided between outright spoofs and just references or homages (An American Werewolf in London vs. the Family Guy spoofs or so on.) --Andrew, Aleal 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, that's the thing, it needs a clear name that won't need any explanation. I think "Muppet References" would be confusing. "Homages" is closer, but it suggests that the other shows are paying tribute to the Muppets, which isn't always the case. The trouble with these names is that really the two categories are mirror images of each other. ::What about something like "Muppet Mentions"? That's not very good, but I'm trying to think of another possible direction. -- Danny Toughpigs 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :::I love Muppet Mentions, mostly because it's alliterative. Actually, most of those are either spoofs or references to The Muppet Show or Sesame, seldom both and seldom anything else (Simpsosn did Dinosaurs once). So maybe we could divide them that way, thus making it very clear? I think "Sesame Street References" or mentions more clearly denotes refrences *to* Sesame Street, than within it, though that's me. --Andrew, Aleal 20:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) ::::There's a few that did both. Simpsons and Family Guy spring to mind. Mystery Science Theater 3000 used Sesame, Muppets and Muppet Babies. (For a while, MST3K had a recurring "Jim Henson's XXX Babies" joke in a bunch of episodes -- Jim Henson's Gandhi Babies, Jim Henson's Last Picture Show Babies, Jim Henson's Edgar Winter Babies. One of these days, I'll actually put all that stuff on the MST3K page.) "Muppet Mentions" is growing on me. I should probably post this on Current events and get other people's ideas... -- Danny Toughpigs 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :::::Good idea. It occurred to me we could just cross reference those that did both, but I realized even The Blues Brothers has a Grover and an Animal doll. --Andrew, Aleal 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Pak Nit Commercial Hey Andrew, Where did you get the Pak Nit commercial, with Shrinkel and Stretchel? Would you be interested in a trade? -- Warrick 18:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :No trade needed. Blame Scott for not putting the link in both places, but check The RX Twins. The whole thing is on You Tube, as is the second Wilson's Meats Meeting film. Animator Nate Pacheco, who's worked with friends of mine, has been uploading a bunch of the stuff from his own collection. Enjoy! --Andrew, Aleal 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Guy Smiley-type Heh. You're gonna hate me for this, but I was just going through the 79 guide, and I found reference to the color used for the Guy Smiley-type AM. Although his page is not called anything as specific as the Pumpkin AM, they do call his color Orange-Gold, citing the shade as Pantone 123. I don't know if that's what we want to call it to more conform to the theme of calling the AMs by their color, but I thought I'd put it out there for you. (Image:1979guide-orangegold.jpg) -- Scott Scarecroe 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :Gar. Actually, in a way, it's easier now that I've put in the Am template on most of the characters. If we want to do it that way, we can do a move without breaking any links. All the redirects would need to be fixed, but it could be done. The thing is, is "Orange Gold" or "Pantone 123" actually more useful than the current name? We want to be accurate, but it also works better when readers can at least guess, even on pages without pictures, from the name, i.e. Pointy Headed Green or Fat Blue. I know I wouldn't have thought of Guy as Orange Gold if you hadn't mentioned it. I'm not saying it doesn't work, and actually it would almost be inconsistent not to change it, but we need to talk about it a bit. My main reason for wavering I guess is because a) it is a bit of work and b) the page isn't as specific as Pumpkin. Hmmm. Are their any other examples of this kind of thing in the guide, with no specific use of a color as a label but with it implied? That may help in knowing how to proceed. --Andrew, Aleal 20:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)'' Andrew's talk archive *Muppet Wiki Talk Archives